Birds

[Slacker]

The problem, Phaedrus, is that you require a ton of proof from those who don't fit your theory, but you accept those who do without any particular proof.

He's assuming that it's right until he can prove it wrong. Is there something wrong with that?

If he requires a lot of proof for those who don't fit, and very little to no proof for those who don't, his results will be dramatically biased because of that.

[KSpin]

The problem, Phaedrus, is that you require a ton of proof from those who don't fit your theory, but you accept those who do without any particular proof.

He's assuming that it's right until he can prove it wrong. Is there something wrong with that?

If he requires a lot of proof for those who don't fit, and very little to no proof for those who don't, his results will be dramatically biased because of that.

That's because it would be time consuming to verify everything that fits your pattern, when all it takes is 1 person to disprove it.

[Slacker]

He said not everyone fits (including me) but he's still considering this theory valid. Which makes it appear that he thinks it fits most of the time? Which means that if he accepts everyone who fits without much information, but doesn't accept those who don't fit unless they have a ton of proof, that assumption is nothing more than an assumption - his method of collection is too biased for the results to be anything but biased.

[KSpin]

He said not everyone fits (including me) but he's still considering this theory valid. Which makes it appear that he thinks it fits most of the time? Which means that if he accepts everyone who fits without much information, but doesn't accept those who don't fit unless they have a ton of proof, that assumption is nothing more than an assumption - his method of collection is too biased for the results to be anything but biased.

You'll find it's something us INTps will do. If it works for a majority of people, then it's still a valid tool for typing people, as long as they know that it's not 100% accurate.

Edit: Although, to be honest, I'd be too lazy to prove anything.

[Slacker]

He said not everyone fits (including me) but he's still considering this theory valid. Which makes it appear that he thinks it fits most of the time? Which means that if he accepts everyone who fits without much information, but doesn't accept those who don't fit unless they have a ton of proof, that assumption is nothing more than an assumption - his method of collection is too biased for the results to be anything but biased.

You'll find it's something us INTps will do. If it works for a majority of people, then it's still a valid tool for typing people, as long as they know that it's not 100% accurate.

Edit: Although, to be honest, I'd be too lazy to prove anything.

AGAIN, he doesn't really know if it works for a majority of people if his method of collecting data is so biased - if the method of collecting data is biased, then the results are biased.

[Expat]

For example, are both Expat and Rick sure -- beyond reasonable doubt -- that you are an ENFj? If that is correct I will probably accept that as enough evidence of your type.

Right -- from the London meeting thread:

how fun, interesting and useful this must have been. Did anyone feel that they could confirm their type or relation to someone else there? Might have been too little and too formal of a time to do so.

The types of the participants became obvious during the exercise and at other moments.

I can say that I am sure of Expat and Olga's types and that they were quite obvious. Kristiina's and Electric's stated types seemed logically correct, but did not seem as obvious to me.

I spent most of the time in London in Kristiina's company, and my observations are:

- for those who have an image of ENFjs as "rock band leader" or "political messiah" or "very slick salesman", that's not obviously her.
- if you see the videos of the meeting (and I can PM you links if you want), everyone who has seen them agrees that Kristiina's "default mode" when in a group is to be emotional in a friendly way.
- in terms of getting around and taking decisions and rhythm, there was never any friction between us that I could notice; and she was also willing to let me push her on a quick-paced walk up and down in the London Underground so I think our temperaments were identical. She never said "what's the hurry" or the like.
- when we went through the functional exercises, her functional preference (as the others') became very clear, and hers was consistent with being ENFj.
- very uncomplicated with food and physical comfort, no great Si concerns <3
- as she also said, it became obvious (more so that I would have thought) that she "lightened up" during Fe moments, especially in the presence of the non-forum couple, but she sort of felt bored when only the Fi-folks were present.
- Olga's suggestion for her type was ISTj, so also Beta and rational, so for your theory it's not really a problem.

The only other type Rick and I briefly discussed was INFp, but I think EJ temperament was obvious, and that is both our views.

[KSpin]

He said not everyone fits (including me) but he's still considering this theory valid. Which makes it appear that he thinks it fits most of the time? Which means that if he accepts everyone who fits without much information, but doesn't accept those who don't fit unless they have a ton of proof, that assumption is nothing more than an assumption - his method of collection is too biased for the results to be anything but biased.

You'll find it's something us INTps will do. If it works for a majority of people, then it's still a valid tool for typing people, as long as they know that it's not 100% accurate.

Edit: Although, to be honest, I'd be too lazy to prove anything.

AGAIN, he doesn't really know if it works for a majority of people if his method of collecting data is so biased - if the method of collecting data is biased, then the results are biased.

Yeah, why do you keep repeating yourself?

[KSpin]

You'll find it's something us INTps will do. If it works for a majority of people, then it's still a valid tool for typing people, as long as they know that it's not 100% accurate.

To reiterate what Slacker Mom is saying: this theory hasn't been tested for the majority of people on this forum. It's as if Phaedrus had an idea and collected together a few names of people who's behaviour supported his idea, and left it at that. He forgot about being unbiased and collecting together a list of all of the people who's behaviour doesn't support his idea. Not that that in itself is the big deal here. What's being felt as the insult is that people who's behaviour doesn't fit in with the theory are being told that they have mistyped themselves, or are wrong about being early birds/night owls (when in fact they do correctly know their type and whether they are early birds/night owls).

Too many repetitions.

[KSpin]

You'll find it's something us INTps will do. If it works for a majority of people, then it's still a valid tool for typing people, as long as they know that it's not 100% accurate.

To reiterate what Slacker Mom is saying: this theory hasn't been tested for the majority of people on this forum. It's as if Phaedrus had an idea and collected together a few names of people who's behaviour supported his idea, and left it at that. He forgot about being unbiased and collecting together a list of all of the people who's behaviour doesn't support his idea. Not that that in itself is the big deal here. What's being felt as the insult is that people who's behaviour doesn't fit in with the theory are being told that they have mistyped themselves, or are wrong about being early birds/night owls (when in fact they do correctly know their type and whether they are early birds/night owls).

Too many repetitions.

Aww, come on. Debate back.

It's not a debate, it's a lecture.

Edit: Anyway, I think if it's not working like it seems not to be, then there could be some other explanation behind who prefers the evenings, and who prefers the mornings. I do disagree with the need for proof from people that say they don't fit the theory, but I also see that Phaedrus is saying that because he may believe someone is just being awkward.

[Creepy-bg]

(In all seriousness though, please don't ever take my comments as lectures. I'm really sorry if they come across like that; but they're only ever meant to be my thoughts/ideas/opinions, and are definitely meant to be up for debate. I'm really very open-minded ... I'll change my mind if I'm wrong .)

this statement is totally wrong

[Creepy-bg]

(In all seriousness though, please don't ever take my comments as lectures. I'm really sorry if they come across like that; but they're only ever meant to be my thoughts/ideas/opinions, and are definitely meant to be up for debate. I'm really very open-minded ... I'll change my mind if I'm wrong .)

this statement is totally wrong

Shit.

LOLZ.... I don't know why but that answer has me literally rolling on the floor

[anndelise]

this is a common problem between NFs and NTs.
NTs seem willing to push a theory and make justifications supporting their theory even when some evidence contradicts it.
NFs seem to think something is a possibility, but if we see even minor exceptions to "the rule", we figure that the rule isn't "real"...as in it doesn't support actual reality.

[Phaedrus]

- if you see the videos of the meeting (and I can PM you links if you want), everyone who has seen them agrees that Kristiina's "default mode" when in a group is to be emotional in a friendly way.

I am always interested in seeing videos of people with a presumed type. In real life I have met three ENFjs, whose type I am fairly certain of. Two of them fitted my V.I. preconceptions perfectly, whereas the third one shares a characteristic facial expression with one of the other two. All three identify strongly with being ENFjs, and everything seems to suggest that type. If Kristiina would happen to have the same type of look as the two ENFjs above, that would be very convincing. Your other arguments seem pretty strong too.

He said not everyone fits (including me) but he's still considering this theory valid. Which makes it appear that he thinks it fits most of the time? Which means that if he accepts everyone who fits without much information, but doesn't accept those who don't fit unless they have a ton of proof, that assumption is nothing more than an assumption - his method of collection is too biased for the results to be anything but biased.

Opinions (including my own) are irrelevant here. I am not interested in opinions, I am interested in facts. And it is not relevant to support the "theory" (hypothesis) with people who fit the pattern. It doesn't matter if we accept them or not, what matters is if we can prove that the hypothesis is false. That's why we should be much more interested in scrutinizing the evidence for those who seemingly don't fit the pattern.

And I am interested in being convinced myself that the hypothesis is false, so that's why it is not enough for me to accept what others say about their types -- unless I can see for myself that it makes perfect sense. I am not doubting Kristiina's type (and neither do I doubt the types of most other forum members), but I don't know her type for sure either. There is a very important difference between "not doubting" and "knowing" (beyond reasonable doubt) that something is the case. In this context I want to be more certain of the correctness of the typings than in other contexts.

[Logos]

I would be more convinced of this theory if it was adjusted simply for sleep cycles such that rationals have regular sleep cycles, while irrationals have more irregular sleep cycles. By that I mean that rationals may not all be early birds, but that they have a greater tendency to sleep the same amount of hours at around exactly the same time everyday or on a given day, whereas irrationals have more fluctuating sleeping patterns. This would make it easier to account for the existence of rational early birds and night owls, while irrationals still have a more irrational sleep cycle behavior.

[KSpin]

I would be more convinced of this theory if it was adjusted simply for sleep cycles such that rationals have regular sleep cycles, while irrationals have more irregular sleep cycles. By that I mean that rationals may not all be early birds, but that they have a greater tendency to sleep the same amount of hours at around exactly the same time everyday or on a given day, whereas irrationals have more fluctuating sleeping patterns. This would make it easier to account for the existence of rational early birds and night owls, while irrationals still have a more irrational sleep cycle behavior.

That's a good theory. Shall we start looking for proof?

[Kristiina]

For example, are both Expat and Rick sure -- beyond reasonable doubt -- that you are an ENFj? If that is correct I will probably accept that as enough evidence of your type.

Right -- from the London meeting thread:

how fun, interesting and useful this must have been. Did anyone feel that they could confirm their type or relation to someone else there? Might have been too little and too formal of a time to do so.

The types of the participants became obvious during the exercise and at other moments.

I can say that I am sure of Expat and Olga's types and that they were quite obvious. Kristiina's and Electric's stated types seemed logically correct, but did not seem as obvious to me.

I spent most of the time in London in Kristiina's company, and my observations are:

- for those who have an image of ENFjs as "rock band leader" or "political messiah" or "very slick salesman", that's not obviously her.
- if you see the videos of the meeting (and I can PM you links if you want), everyone who has seen them agrees that Kristiina's "default mode" when in a group is to be emotional in a friendly way.
- in terms of getting around and taking decisions and rhythm, there was never any friction between us that I could notice; and she was also willing to let me push her on a quick-paced walk up and down in the London Underground so I think our temperaments were identical. She never said "what's the hurry" or the like.
- when we went through the functional exercises, her functional preference (as the others') became very clear, and hers was consistent with being ENFj.
- very uncomplicated with food and physical comfort, no great Si concerns <3
- as she also said, it became obvious (more so that I would have thought) that she "lightened up" during Fe moments, especially in the presence of the non-forum couple, but she sort of felt bored when only the Fi-folks were present.
- Olga's suggestion for her type was ISTj, so also Beta and rational, so for your theory it's not really a problem.

The only other type Rick and I briefly discussed was INFp, but I think EJ temperament was obvious, and that is both our views.

I should copy this post somewhere because it's relevant to future "You're so ISFj!!!" discussions.

[Logos]

I would be more convinced of this theory if it was adjusted simply for sleep cycles such that rationals have regular sleep cycles, while irrationals have more irregular sleep cycles. By that I mean that rationals may not all be early birds, but that they have a greater tendency to sleep the same amount of hours at around exactly the same time everyday or on a given day, whereas irrationals have more fluctuating sleeping patterns. This would make it easier to account for the existence of rational early birds and night owls, while irrationals still have a more irrational sleep cycle behavior.

That's a good theory. Shall we start looking for proof?

I would not go as far to say that we should "start looking for proof," so much as I would say that we should look into the empirical merits of the hypothesis.

[KSpin]

I would be more convinced of this theory if it was adjusted simply for sleep cycles such that rationals have regular sleep cycles, while irrationals have more irregular sleep cycles. By that I mean that rationals may not all be early birds, but that they have a greater tendency to sleep the same amount of hours at around exactly the same time everyday or on a given day, whereas irrationals have more fluctuating sleeping patterns. This would make it easier to account for the existence of rational early birds and night owls, while irrationals still have a more irrational sleep cycle behavior.

That's a good theory. Shall we start looking for proof?

I would not go as far to say that we should "start looking for proof," so much as I would say that we should look into the empirical merits of the hypothesis.

You say 'tomato' I say 'tomato'.

[Exodus]

I would be more convinced of this theory if it was adjusted simply for sleep cycles such that rationals have regular sleep cycles, while irrationals have more irregular sleep cycles. By that I mean that rationals may not all be early birds, but that they have a greater tendency to sleep the same amount of hours at around exactly the same time everyday or on a given day, whereas irrationals have more fluctuating sleeping patterns. This would make it easier to account for the existence of rational early birds and night owls, while irrationals still have a more irrational sleep cycle behavior.

That's a good theory. Shall we start looking for proof?

I would not go as far to say that we should "start looking for proof," so much as I would say that we should look into the empirical merits of the hypothesis.

You say 'tomato' I say 'tomato'.

Your choice of words is ironic, though, isn't it?

[Expat]

For example, are both Expat and Rick sure -- beyond reasonable doubt -- that you are an ENFj? If that is correct I will probably accept that as enough evidence of your type.

Right -- from the London meeting thread:

how fun, interesting and useful this must have been. Did anyone feel that they could confirm their type or relation to someone else there? Might have been too little and too formal of a time to do so.

The types of the participants became obvious during the exercise and at other moments.

I can say that I am sure of Expat and Olga's types and that they were quite obvious. Kristiina's and Electric's stated types seemed logically correct, but did not seem as obvious to me.

I spent most of the time in London in Kristiina's company, and my observations are:

- for those who have an image of ENFjs as "rock band leader" or "political messiah" or "very slick salesman", that's not obviously her.
- if you see the videos of the meeting (and I can PM you links if you want), everyone who has seen them agrees that Kristiina's "default mode" when in a group is to be emotional in a friendly way.
- in terms of getting around and taking decisions and rhythm, there was never any friction between us that I could notice; and she was also willing to let me push her on a quick-paced walk up and down in the London Underground so I think our temperaments were identical. She never said "what's the hurry" or the like.
- when we went through the functional exercises, her functional preference (as the others') became very clear, and hers was consistent with being ENFj.
- very uncomplicated with food and physical comfort, no great Si concerns <3
- as she also said, it became obvious (more so that I would have thought) that she "lightened up" during Fe moments, especially in the presence of the non-forum couple, but she sort of felt bored when only the Fi-folks were present.
- Olga's suggestion for her type was ISTj, so also Beta and rational, so for your theory it's not really a problem.

The only other type Rick and I briefly discussed was INFp, but I think EJ temperament was obvious, and that is both our views.

I should copy this post somewhere because it's relevant to future "You're so ISFj!!!" discussions.

I had forgotten this --

When Kristiina was seeing ENTj as her type, she also went through the Reinin dichotomies, in a "classical" way, that is, just seeing how the traits described by Reinin fit her. As a whole, they pointed very clearly to Beta NF. That was a time when nobody, especially not her, was looking at ENFj.

So I think that Kristiina's type is overall very well supported.

[XoX]

I had forgotten this --

When Kristiina was seeing ENTj as her type, she also went through the Reinin dichotomies, in a "classical" way, that is, just seeing how the traits described by Reinin fit her. As a whole, they pointed very clearly to Beta NF. That was a time when nobody, especially not her, was looking at ENFj.

So I think that Kristiina's type is overall very well supported.

How I remember it was that many others and eventually she herself too were already considering ENFj at that point and the reinin thing was more like a research/confirmation effort on her part. I think she didn't want to feel like she was forced to adopt the type but wanted to come to that conclusion herself (or possibly reject it should the reinin test show preference for ENTj). And to show everyone that it is her own decision not anyone else's decision. Correct me if I'm wrong. It has been a long time. I don't remember it coming out of the blue as you claim. Not that it matters as I'm not currently contesting ENFj as her type.